Energy Company Sending Debt Collectors

Simplycito

Talldave wrote: »

The OP's done all of that, bar the complaint.

No they haven't, based on what they have posted.

But rather that try/fail to criticise those trying to assist, why not offer assistance of your own?

Simplycito

dogshome wrote: »

YES - A letter by Royal Mail does have more clout than than an E.mail because it is enshrined in law that it deemed to have been delivered in 48 hours.


When n'power were under the hammer from Ofgem to reduce the number of customer complaints, they came with a number of 'creative' ways of doing so, and denial of Email receipt was one of them.

How long does an email take to be delivered?

Any law suggesting email is not a legally acceptable form of communication? No.

How was it discovered that "When n'power were under the hammer from Ofgem to reduce the number of customer complaints, they came with a number of 'creative' ways of doing so, and denial of Email receipt was one of them."?
Presumably there was some form of evidence to suggest the emails were in fact sent/received ?

The ombudsman usually accepts proof of email by the sender if they seem a more reliable party than the party in denial.

Communication by email is perfectly acceptable in law.

Talldave

Simplycito wrote: »

No they haven't, based on what they have posted.

But rather that try and criticise those trying to assist, why not offer assistance of your own?

Well post #1 says they have.

I have nothing further to offer than post #2, which you took it upon yourself to criticise. So it's ok for you to criticise other posters, but not the other way around? Glad that's clear.

[Deleted User]

Couple of points OP. I hope you provided accurate opening meter readings which should match the outgoing ending meter readings (give or take a unit or two ) around the date you took over the property, not when you moved in.
.Spark Energy who I worked for as a meter reader seemed to specialise in prepayment meters so are the meters in the property prepays.?
You would also be able to assist Spark Energy in finding out the previous occupants and possibly a forwarding address to pointing Spark to the correct person.Has that been possible ?. You would have had lots of letters in the last occupiers name through your letter box no doubt /
When I sold my property my suppliers both wanted the name and address of the new occupant, so did the water company .
Sounds like the last occupier never went by the rules, which is not uncommon especially if they owed debts , in both submitting an end meter reading ( even for prepays ) and a forwarding address.
I found Spark a pretty shambolic supplier to work for and often had customers having a good old rant at me holding up a bunch of bills and letters. Now they have been taken over by Ovo hopefully they re running it better but as the majority of their customers were on prepay meters they faced more problems than most suppliers

Simplycito

Talldave wrote: »

Well post #1 says they have.

I have nothing further to offer than post #2, which you took it upon yourself to criticise. So it's ok for you to criticise other posters, but not the other way around? Glad that's clear.

Post#2 confirms they have not.

I can only suggest you, and all those who find you criticising those here to assist the OP useful, re-read it carefully

I didn't criticise the content of post#2, I simply questioned the validity of it.

Glad that's clear.

Raxiel

Simplycito wrote: »

How long does an email take to be delivered?

Any law suggesting email is not a legally acceptable form of communication? No.

How was it discovered that "When n'power were under the hammer from Ofgem to reduce the number of customer complaints, they came with a number of 'creative' ways of doing so, and denial of Email receipt was one of them."?
Presumably there was some form of evidence to suggest the emails were in fact sent/received ?

The ombudsman usually accepts proof of email by the sender if they seem a more reliable party than the party in denial.

Communication by email is perfectly acceptable in law.

The point isn't whether email is an acceptable form of communication.
If there is evidence an email was received, like an acknowledgement response then it has the same legal weight as a letter.
If there is no response or confirmation, then there is no proof it was received. Proof an email was sent does not prove receipt.
A letter sent first class with proof of postage (not registered post, as that can be refused), is deemed to have been recieved within 48 hours in the eyes of the law.


The difference is that the burden of proof lies with the recipient if they want to claim they didn't receive a letter.

Simplycito

Raxiel wrote: »

The point isn't whether email is an acceptable form of communication.
If there is evidence an email was received, like an acknowledgement response then it has the same legal weight as a letter.
If there is no response or confirmation, then there is no proof it was received. Proof an email was sent does not prove receipt.
A letter sent first class with proof of postage (not registered post, as that can be refused), is deemed to have been recieved within 48 hours in the eyes of the law.


The difference is that the burden of proof lies with the recipient if they want to claim they didn't receive a letter.

Thank you.

Can I ask what law in particular yuu are referring to? Again, not criticising before Talldave and his mates jump on me again, just asking for clarification and educational reasons

I see you acknowlege there is no legal issue with email as a form of communication, especially when as I said "many suppliers will send an auto-acknowledgment of receipt, so they can't later claim they never received it even if they don't ever respond. But of cousrse, if no response is receioved, you will probably try again and again, and possibly via another method."

As I also mentioned, "The ombudsman usually accepts proof of email by the sender if they seem a more reliable party than the party in denial."

As regards a phone call, then your telephony company will usually be able to assist in providing evidence of making such a call (inc time of call, duration and receiving number) if the supplier were to foolishly deny having been contacted that way.

I see you now have added the requirement to obtain proof of postage when sending a letter, so yet more expense of time, money & effort for someone wishing to communicate that way.; the requirement to obtain proof of postage was not included in post#2 which is partly why I questioned the poster. Also I see you also specify it must be first class postage, so that's even more expense, again something omitted in post#2.

Gerry1

Simplycito wrote: »

I see you now have added the requirement to obtain proof of postage when sending a letter, so yet more expense of time, money & effort for someone wishing to communicate that way.

Proof of posting is free of charge.

Simplycito

Gerry1 wrote: »

Proof of posting is free of charge.

I am aware that the post office does not charge for the receipt, but there is often a cost associated with travelling to and from the post office, particularly with so many post offices have been closed down.

Likewise, the time and effort of actually asking the postmaster may not be the issue, but rather the travelling to and from the post office to obtain the proof is the bigger issue here.

Do you know which law is being referred to by Raxiel? :cool:

Steve123456789

Simplycito wrote: »

No they haven't, based on what they have posted.

But rather that try/fail to criticise those trying to assist, why not offer assistance of your own?

Yes I have. I literally said it in the OP.
I have corrected every debt collection agency, and I've corrected the energy company every time a debt collection agency has sent me a letter.